|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Paul GiverinPaul Giverin Date: Jun 27, 2008 00:53
I rarely have to post to moderated groups but last evening at 18.30 I
posted to uk.legal.moderated
Its now 08.50 the following day and the moderation.org.uk site still
shows the post awaiting moderation. That's over 14 hours and counting.
Assuming that any reply takes the same time to appear, it makes the
newsgroup completely useless for me.
|
| |
|
| | 8 Comments |
|
|
Date: Jun 27, 2008 07:16
On 2008-06-27, Paul Giverin giverin.co.uk> wrote:> I rarely have to post to moderated groups but last evening at 18.30 I
> posted to uk.legal.moderated
>
> Its now 08.50 the following day and the moderation.org.uk site still
> shows the post awaiting moderation. That's over 14 hours and counting.
> Assuming that any reply takes the same time to appear, it makes the
> newsgroup completely useless for me.
What a terrible shame.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Paul GiverinPaul Giverin Date: Jun 27, 2008 09:25
In message snowy.squish.net>, Jon Ribbens
unequivocal.co.uk> writes>On 2008-06-27, Paul Giverin giverin.co.uk> wrote:>> I rarely have to post to moderated groups but last evening at 18.30 I
>> posted to uk.legal.moderated
>>
>> Its now 08.50 the following day and the moderation.org.uk site still
>> shows the post awaiting moderation. That's over 14 hours and counting.
>> Assuming that any reply takes the same time to appear, it makes the
>> newsgroup completely useless for me. >
>What a terrible shame.
"Moderators should attempt to ensure that discussions can continue
without undue delay, and should therefore attempt to make a decision on
all posts within a few hours of submission. "
Initial post took 17 hours 31 minutes. Follow-up post currently awaiting
moderation after 4 hours 30.
Go fuck yourself!
|
| Show full article (0.97Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Jun 27, 2008 09:56
On 2008-06-27, Paul Giverin giverin.co.uk> wrote:> Go fuck yourself!
Would you like your money back?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Percy PicacityPercy Picacity Date: Jun 27, 2008 11:20
Paul Giverin giverin.co.uk> wrote in
news:NKo1DIByRRZIFwiX@10.0.0.3:
> In message snowy.squish.net>, Jon
> Ribbens
>unequivocal.co.uk> writes>>On 2008-06-27, Paul Giverin giverin.co.uk> wrote:>>> I rarely have to post to moderated...
|
| Show full article (1.18Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tim JacksonTim Jackson Date: Jun 28, 2008 07:36
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:25:22 +0100, Paul Giverin wrote...
> "Moderators should attempt to ensure that discussions can continue
> without undue delay, and should therefore attempt to make a decision on
> all posts within a few hours of submission. "
Unfortunately, the moderators are unpaid volunteers, and they aren't
always around.
> Initial post took 17 hours 31 minutes. Follow-up post currently awaiting
> moderation after 4 hours 30.
>
> Go fuck yourself!
If, after a new poster has made a few posts, the moderators can see that
he/she is unlikely to breach the group's charter, then they will
typically whitelist him/her. Subsequent posts should then go through
automatically in a matter of seconds.
If, on the other hand, the moderators get the impression that the new
poster might tell people to go fuck themselves....
|
| Show full article (0.93Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: The TodalThe Todal Date: Jun 29, 2008 02:24
"Paul Giverin" giverin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NKo1DIByRRZIFwiX@10.0.0.3...> In message snowy.squish.net>, Jon Ribbens
> unequivocal.co.uk> writes>>On 2008-06-27, Paul Giverin giverin.co.uk> wrote:>>> I rarely have to post to moderated groups but last evening at 18.30 I
>>> posted to uk.legal.moderated
>>>
>>> Its now 08.50 the following day and the moderation.org.uk site still
>>> shows the post awaiting moderation. That's over 14 hours and counting.
>>> Assuming that any reply takes the same time to appear, it makes the
>>> newsgroup completely useless for me. >>
>>What a terrible shame.
>
> "Moderators should attempt to ensure that discussions can continue without
> undue delay, and should therefore attempt to make a decision on all posts
> within a few hours of submission. "
>
> Initial post took 17 hours 31 minutes. Follow-up post currently awaiting ...
|
| Show full article (1.77Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Wm...Wm... Date: Jun 29, 2008 05:11
>Your frustration is understandable. However I cannot suggest a solution.
>And your expression of frustration (outside the moderated group) won't
>adversely affect the likelihood of you being added to the whitelist, in the
>event that you decide to persevere with the group.
Surely the important bit is that ulm is an adjunct to legal advice. Many
interesting questions have been asked and many interesting issues
discussed but ulm is not a replacement for professional legal advice.
So, it is just after 1pm on Sunday as I write, is the OP's solicitor
available to him right now? I doubt it unless he has a lot more money
than me.
The other side of the argument is that if the OP had taken part in ulm
over a period of time and behaved well he'd have been whitelisted before
his apparent emergency. The general idea being that if you have
contributed before you are more likely to receive help when you need it.
Or something.
|
| Show full article (1.11Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Steve WalkerSteve Walker Date: Jun 29, 2008 14:09
Wm... wrote:
>> Your frustration is understandable. However I cannot suggest a
>> solution. And your expression of frustration (outside the moderated
>> group) won't adversely affect the likelihood of you being added to
>> the whitelist, in the event that you decide to persevere with the
>> group.
>
> Surely the important bit is that ulm is an adjunct to legal advice.
> Many interesting questions have been asked and many interesting issues
> discussed but ulm is not a replacement for professional legal advice.
>
> So, it is just after 1pm on Sunday as I write, is the OP's solicitor
> available to him right now? I doubt it unless he has a lot more money
> than me.
>
> The other side of the argument is that if the OP had taken part in ulm
> over a period of time and behaved well he'd have been whitelisted ...
|
| Show full article (1.13Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
